Yoga for chronic non-specific low back pain.

Non-specific low back pain is a common, potentially disabling condition usually treated with self-care and non-prescription medication. For chronic low back pain, current guidelines recommend exercise therapy. Yoga is a mind-body exercise sometimes used for non-specific low back pain. To evaluate the benefits and harms of yoga for treating chronic non-specific low back pain in adults compared to sham yoga, no specific treatment, a minimal intervention (e.g. education), or another active treatment, focusing on pain, function, quality of life, and adverse events. We used standard, extensive Cochrane search methods. The latest search date was 31 August 2021 without language or publication status restrictions. We included randomized controlled trials of yoga compared to sham yoga, no intervention, any other intervention and yoga added to other therapies. We followed standard Cochrane methods. Our major outcomes were 1. back-specific function, 2. pain, 3. clinical improvement, 4. mental and physical quality of life, 5. depression, and 6. Our minor outcome was 1. work disability. We used GRADE to assess certainty of evidence for the major outcomes. We included 21 trials (2223 participants) from the USA, India, the UK, Croatia, Germany, Sweden, and Turkey. Participants were recruited from both clinical and community settings. Most were women in their 40s or 50s. Most trials used iyengar, hatha, or viniyoga yoga. Trials compared yoga to a non-exercise control including waiting list, usual care, or education (10 trials); back-focused exercise such as physical therapy (five trials); both exercise and non-exercise controls (four trials); both non-exercise and another mind-body exercise (qigong) (one trial); and yoga plus exercise to exercise alone (one trial). One trial comparing yoga to exercise was an intensive residential one-week program, and we analyzed this trial separately. All trials were at high risk of performance and detection bias because participants and providers were not blinded to treatment, and outcomes were self-assessed. We found no trials comparing yoga to sham yoga. Low-certainty evidence from 11 trials showed that there may be a small clinically unimportant improvement in back-specific function with yoga (mean difference [MD] -1.69, 95% confidence interval [CI] -2.73 to -0.65 on the 0- to 24-point Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaire [RMDQ], lower = better, minimal clinically important difference [MCID] 5 points; 1155 participants) and moderate-certainty evidence from nine trials showed a clinically unimportant improvement in pain (MD -4.53, 95% CI -6.61 to -2.46 on a 0 to 100 scale, 0 no pain, MCID 15 points; 946 participants) compared to no exercise at three months. Low-certainty evidence from four trials showed that there may be a clinical improvement with yoga (risk ratio [RR] 2.33, 95% CI 1.46 to 3.71; assessed as participant rating that back pain was improved or resolved; 353 participants). Moderate-certainty evidence from six trials showed that there is probably a small improvement in physical and mental quality of life (physical: MD 1.80, 95% CI 0.27 to 3.33 on the 36-item Short Form [SF-36] physical health scale, higher = better; mental: MD 2.38, 95% CI 0.60 to 4.17 on the SF-36 mental health scale, higher = better; both 686 participants). Low-certainty evidence from three trials showed little to no improvement in depression (MD -1.25, 95% CI -2.90 to 0.46 on the Beck Depression Inventory, lower = better; 241 participants). There was low-certainty evidence from eight trials that yoga increased the risk of adverse events, primarily increased back pain, at six to 12 months (RR 4.76, 95% CI 2.08 to 10.89; 43/1000 with yoga and 9/1000 with no exercise; 1037 participants). For yoga compared to back-focused exercise controls (8 trials, 912 participants) at three months, we found moderate-certainty evidence from four trials for little or no difference in back-specific function (MD -0.38, 95% CI -1.33 to 0.62 on the RMDQ, lower = better; 575 participants) and very low-certainty evidence from two trials for little or no difference in pain (MD 2.68, 95% CI -2.01 to 7.36 on a 0 to 100 scale, lower = better; 326 participants). We found very low-certainty evidence from three trials for no difference in clinical improvement assessed as participant rating that back pain was improved or resolved (RR 0.97, 95% CI 0.72 to 1.31; 433 participants) and very low-certainty evidence from one trial for little or no difference in physical and mental quality of life (physical: MD 1.30, 95% CI -0.95 to 3.55 on the SF-36 physical health scale, higher = better; mental: MD 1.90, 95% CI -1.17 to 4.97 on the SF-36 mental health scale, higher = better; both 237 participants). No studies reported depression. Low-certainty evidence from five trials showed that there was little or no difference between yoga and exercise in the risk of adverse events at six to 12 months (RR 0.93, 95% CI 0.56 to 1.53; 84/1000 with yoga and 91/1000 with non-yoga exercise; 640 participants). There is low- to moderate-certainty evidence that yoga compared to no exercise results in small and clinically unimportant improvements in back-related function and pain. There is probably little or no difference between yoga and other back-related exercise for back-related function at three months, although it remains uncertain whether there is any difference between yoga and other exercise for pain and quality of life. Yoga is associated with more adverse events than no exercise, but may have the same risk of adverse events as other exercise. In light of these results, decisions to use yoga instead of no exercise or another exercise may depend on availability, cost, and participant or provider preference. Since all studies were unblinded and at high risk of performance and detection bias, it is unlikely that blinded comparisons would find a clinically important benefit.

Wieland LS ，Skoetz N ，Pilkington K ，Harbin S ，Vempati R ，Berman BM ... -  《Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews》

Yoga treatment for chronic non-specific low back pain.

Wieland LS ，Skoetz N ，Pilkington K ，Vempati R ，D'Adamo CR ，Berman BM ... -  《Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews》

Yoga Treatment for Chronic Non-Specific Low Back Pain (2017).

Wieland LS, Skoetz N, Pilkington K, Vempati R, D׳Adamo CR, Berman BM. Yoga treatment for chronic non-specific low back pain.Cochrane Database Syst Rev2017, Issue 1. Art. No.: CD010671. DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD010671.pub2. Non-specific low back pain is a common, potentially disabling condition usually treated with self-care and non-prescription medication. For chronic low back pain, current guidelines state that exercise therapy may be beneficial. Yoga is a mind-body exercise sometimes used for non-specific low back pain. To assess the effects of yoga for treating chronic non-specific low back pain, compared to no specific treatment, a minimal intervention (e.g., education), or another active treatment, with a focus on pain, function, and adverse events. We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, five other databases, and four trials registers to 11 March 2016 without restriction of language or publication status. We screened reference lists and contacted experts in the field to identify additional studies. We included randomized controlled trials of yoga treatment in people with chronic non-specific low back pain. We included studies comparing yoga to any other intervention or to no intervention. We also included studies comparing yoga as an adjunct to other therapies, versus those other therapies alone. Two authors independently screened and selected studies, extracted outcome data, and assessed risk of bias. We contacted study authors to obtain missing or unclear information. We evaluated the overall certainty of evidence using the GRADE approach. We included 12 trials (1080 participants) carried out in the USA (seven trials), India (three trials), and the UK (two trials). Studies were unfunded (one trial), funded by a yoga institution (one trial), funded by non-profit or government sources (seven trials), or did not report on funding (three trials). Most trials used Iyengar, Hatha, or Viniyoga forms of yoga. The trials compared yoga to no intervention or a non-exercise intervention such as education (seven trials), an exercise intervention (three trials), or both exercise and non-exercise interventions (two trials). All trials were at high risk of performance and detection bias because participants and providers were not blinded to treatment assignment, and outcomes were self-assessed. Therefore, we downgraded all outcomes to "moderate" certainty evidence because of risk of bias, and when there was additional serious risk of bias, unexplained heterogeneity between studies, or the analyses were imprecise, we downgraded the certainty of the evidence further. For yoga compared to non-exercise controls (9 trials; 810 participants), there was low-certainty evidence that yoga produced small to moderate improvements in back-related function at three to four months [standardized mean difference (SMD) = -0.40, 95% CI: -0.66 to -0.14; corresponding to a change in the Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaire of mean difference (MD) = -2.18, 95% CI: -3.60 to -0.76], moderate-certainty evidence for small to moderate improvements at six months (SMD = -0.44, 95% CI: -0.66 to -0.22; corresponding to a change in the Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaire of MD = -2.15, 95% CI: -3.23 to -1.08), and low-certainty evidence for small improvements at 12 months (SMD = -0.26, 95% CI: -0.46 to -0.05; corresponding to a change in the Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaire of MD = -1.36, 95% CI: -2.41 to -0.26). On a 0-100 scale there was very low- to moderate-certainty evidence that yoga was slightly better for pain at three to four months (MD = -4.55, 95% CI: -7.04 to -2.06), six months (MD = -7.81, 95% CI: -13.37 to -2.25), and 12 months (MD = -5.40, 95% CI: -14.50 to -3.70); however, we pre-defined clinically significant changes in pain as 15 points or greater and this threshold was not met. Based on information from six trials, there was moderate-certainty evidence that the risk of adverse events, primarily increased back pain, was higher in yoga than in non-exercise controls [risk difference (RD) = 5%, 95% CI: 2-8%]. For yoga compared to non-yoga exercise controls (4 trials; 394 participants), there was very-low-certainty evidence for little or no difference in back-related function at three months (SMD = -0.22, 95% CI: -0.65 to 0.20; corresponding to a change in the Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaire of MD = -0.99, 95% CI: -2.87 to 0.90) and six months (SMD = -0.20, 95% CI: -0.59 to 0.19; corresponding to a change in the Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaire of MD = -0.90, 95% CI: -2.61 to 0.81), and no information on back-related function after six months. There was very low-certainty evidence for lower pain on a 0-100 scale at seven months (MD = -20.40, 95% CI: -25.48 to -15.32), and no information on pain at three months or after seven months. Based on information from three trials, there was low-certainty evidence for no difference in the risk of adverse events between yoga and non-yoga exercise controls (RD = 1%, 95% CI: -4% to 6%). For yoga added to exercise compared to exercise alone (1 trial; 24 participants), there was very-low-certainty evidence for little or no difference at 10 weeks in back-related function (SMD = -0.60, 95% CI: -1.42 to 0.22; corresponding to a change in the Oswestry Disability Index of MD = -17.05, 95% CI: -22.96 to 11.14) or pain on a 0-100 scale (MD = -3.20, 95% CI: -13.76 to 7.36). There was no information on outcomes at other time points. There was no information on adverse events. Studies provided limited evidence on risk of clinical improvement, measures of quality of life, and depression. There was no evidence on work-related disability.

Whitehead A ，Gould Fogerite S 《-》

Acupuncture for chronic nonspecific low back pain.

Chronic nonspecific low back pain (LBP) is very common; it is defined as pain without a recognizable etiology that lasts for more than three months. Some clinical practice guidelines suggest that acupuncture can offer an effective alternative therapy. This review is a split from an earlier Cochrane review and it focuses on chronic LBP. To assess the effects of acupuncture compared to sham intervention, no treatment, or usual care for chronic nonspecific LBP. We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, two Chinese databases, and two trial registers to 29 August 2019 without restrictions on language or publication status. We also screened reference lists and LBP guidelines to identify potentially relevant studies. We included only randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of acupuncture for chronic nonspecific LBP in adults. We excluded RCTs that investigated LBP with a specific etiology. We included trials comparing acupuncture with sham intervention, no treatment, and usual care. The primary outcomes were pain, back-specific functional status, and quality of life; the secondary outcomes were pain-related disability, global assessment, or adverse events. Two review authors independently screened the studies, assessed the risk of bias and extracted the data. We meta-analyzed data that were clinically homogeneous using a random-effects model in Review Manager 5.3. Otherwise, we reported the data qualitatively. We used the GRADE approach to assess the certainty of the evidence. We included 33 studies (37 articles) with 8270 participants. The majority of studies were carried out in Europe, Asia, North and South America. Seven studies (5572 participants) conducted in Germany accounted for 67% of the participants. Sixteen trials compared acupuncture with sham intervention, usual care, or no treatment. Most studies had high risk of performance bias due to lack of blinding of the acupuncturist. A few studies were found to have high risk of detection, attrition, reporting or selection bias. We found low-certainty evidence (seven trials, 1403 participants) that acupuncture may relieve pain in the immediate term (up to seven days) compared to sham intervention (mean difference (MD) -9.22, 95% confidence interval (CI) -13.82 to -4.61, visual analogue scale (VAS) 0-100). The difference did not meet the clinically important threshold of 15 points or 30% relative change. Very low-certainty evidence from five trials (1481 participants) showed that acupuncture was not more effective than sham in improving back-specific function in the immediate term (standardized mean difference (SMD) -0.16, 95% CI -0.38 to 0.06; corresponding to the Hannover Function Ability Questionnaire (HFAQ, 0 to 100, higher values better) change (MD 3.33 points; 95% CI -1.25 to 7.90)). Three trials (1068 participants) yielded low-certainty evidence that acupuncture seemed not to be more effective clinically in the short term for quality of life (SMD 0.24, 95% CI 0.03 to 0.45; corresponding to the physical 12-item Short Form Health Survey (SF-12, 0-100, higher values better) change (MD 2.33 points; 95% CI 0.29 to 4.37)). The reasons for downgrading the certainty of the evidence to either low to very low were risk of bias, inconsistency, and imprecision. We found moderate-certainty evidence that acupuncture produced greater and clinically important pain relief (MD -20.32, 95% CI -24.50 to -16.14; four trials, 366 participants; (VAS, 0 to 100), and improved back function (SMD -0.53, 95% CI -0.73 to -0.34; five trials, 2960 participants; corresponding to the HFAQ change (MD 11.50 points; 95% CI 7.38 to 15.84)) in the immediate term compared to no treatment. The evidence was downgraded to moderate certainty due to risk of bias. No studies reported on quality of life in the short term or adverse events. Low-certainty evidence (five trials, 1054 participants) suggested that acupuncture may reduce pain (MD -10.26, 95% CI -17.11 to -3.40; not clinically important on 0 to 100 VAS), and improve back-specific function immediately after treatment (SMD: -0.47; 95% CI: -0.77 to -0.17; five trials, 1381 participants; corresponding to the HFAQ change (MD 9.78 points, 95% CI 3.54 to 16.02)) compared to usual care. Moderate-certainty evidence from one trial (731 participants) found that acupuncture was more effective in improving physical quality of life (MD 4.20, 95% CI 2.82 to 5.58) but not mental quality of life in the short term (MD 1.90, 95% CI 0.25 to 3.55). The certainty of evidence was downgraded to moderate to low because of risk of bias, inconsistency, and imprecision. Low-certainty evidence suggested a similar incidence of adverse events immediately after treatment in the acupuncture and sham intervention groups (four trials, 465 participants) (RR 0.68 95% CI 0.46 to 1.01), and the acupuncture and usual care groups (one trial, 74 participants) (RR 3.34, 95% CI 0.36 to 30.68). The certainty of the evidence was downgraded due to risk of bias and imprecision. No trial reported adverse events for acupuncture when compared to no treatment. The most commonly reported adverse events in the acupuncture groups were insertion point pain, bruising, hematoma, bleeding, worsening of LBP, and pain other than LBP (pain in leg and shoulder). We found that acupuncture may not play a more clinically meaningful role than sham in relieving pain immediately after treatment or in improving quality of life in the short term, and acupuncture possibly did not improve back function compared to sham in the immediate term. However, acupuncture was more effective than no treatment in improving pain and function in the immediate term. Trials with usual care as the control showed acupuncture may not reduce pain clinically, but the therapy may improve function immediately after sessions as well as physical but not mental quality of life in the short term. The evidence was downgraded to moderate to very low-certainty considering most of studies had high risk of bias, inconsistency, and small sample size introducing imprecision. The decision to use acupuncture to treat chronic low back pain might depend on the availability, cost and patient's preferences.

Mu J ，Furlan AD ，Lam WY ，Hsu MY ，Ning Z ，Lao L ... -  《Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews》

Therapeutic ultrasound for chronic low back pain.

This is an update of a Cochrane Review published in 2014. Chronic non-specific low back pain (LBP) has become one of the main causes of disability in the adult population around the world. Although therapeutic ultrasound is not recommended in recent clinical guidelines, it is frequently used by physiotherapists in the treatment of chronic LBP. The objective of this review was to determine the effectiveness of therapeutic ultrasound in the management of chronic non-specific LBP. A secondary objective was to determine the most effective dosage and intensity of therapeutic ultrasound for chronic LBP. We performed electronic searches in CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, PEDro, Index to Chiropractic Literature, and two trials registers to 7 January 2020. We checked the reference lists of eligible studies and relevant systematic reviews and performed forward citation searching. We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) on therapeutic ultrasound for chronic non-specific LBP. We compared ultrasound (either alone or in combination with another treatment) with placebo or other interventions for chronic LBP. Two review authors independently assessed the risk of bias of each trial and extracted the data. We performed a meta-analysis when sufficient clinical and statistical homogeneity existed. We determined the certainty of the evidence for each comparison using the GRADE approach. We included 10 RCTs involving a total of 1025 participants with chronic LBP. The included studies were carried out in secondary care settings in Turkey, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Croatia, the UK, and the USA, and most applied therapeutic ultrasound in addition to another treatment, for six to 18 treatment sessions. The risk of bias was unclear in most studies. Eight studies (80%) had unclear or high risk of selection bias; no studies blinded care providers to the intervention; and only five studies (50%) blinded participants. There was a risk of selective reporting in eight studies (80%), and no studies adequately assessed compliance with the intervention. There was very low-certainty evidence (downgraded for imprecision, inconsistency, and limitations in design) of little to no difference between therapeutic ultrasound and placebo for short-term pain improvement (mean difference (MD) -7.12, 95% confidence interval (CI) -17.99 to 3.75; n = 121, 3 RCTs; 0-to-100-point visual analogue scale (VAS)). There was also moderate-certainty evidence (downgraded for imprecision) of little to no difference in the number of participants achieving a 30% reduction in pain in the short term (risk ratio 1.08, 95% CI 0.81 to 1.44; n = 225, 1 RCT). There was low-certainty evidence (downgraded for imprecision and limitations in design) that therapeutic ultrasound has a small effect on back-specific function compared with placebo in the short term (standardised mean difference -0.29, 95% CI -0.51 to -0.07 (MD -1.07, 95% CI -1.89 to -0.26; Roland Morris Disability Questionnaire); n = 325; 4 RCTs), but this effect does not appear to be clinically important. There was moderate-certainty evidence (downgraded for imprecision) of little to no difference between therapeutic ultrasound and placebo on well-being (MD -2.71, 95% CI -9.85 to 4.44; n = 267, 2 RCTs; general health subscale of the 36-item Short Form Health Survey (SF-36)). Two studies (n = 486) reported on overall improvement and satisfaction between groups, and both reported little to no difference between groups (low-certainty evidence, downgraded for serious imprecision). One study (n = 225) reported on adverse events and did not identify any adverse events related to the intervention (low-certainty evidence, downgraded for serious imprecision). No study reported on disability for this comparison. We do not know whether therapeutic ultrasound in addition to exercise results in better outcomes than exercise alone because the certainty of the evidence for all outcomes was very low (downgraded for imprecision and serious limitations in design). The estimate effect for pain was in favour of the ultrasound plus exercise group (MD -21.1, 95% CI -27.6 to -14.5; n = 70, 2 RCTs; 0-to-100-point VAS) at short term. Regarding back-specific function (MD - 0.41, 95% CI -3.14 to 2.32; n = 79, 2 RCTs; Oswestry Disability Questionnaire) and well-being (MD -2.50, 95% CI -9.53 to 4.53; n = 79, 2 RCTs; general health subscale of the SF-36), there was little to no difference between groups at short term. No studies reported on the number of participants achieving a 30% reduction in pain, patient satisfaction, disability, or adverse events for this comparison. The evidence from this systematic review is uncertain regarding the effect of therapeutic ultrasound on pain in individuals with chronic non-specific LBP. Whilst there is some evidence that therapeutic ultrasound may have a small effect on improving low back function in the short term compared to placebo, the certainty of evidence is very low. The true effect is likely to be substantially different. There are few high-quality randomised trials, and the available trials were very small. The current evidence does not support the use of therapeutic ultrasound in the management of chronic LBP.

Ebadi S ，Henschke N ，Forogh B ，Nakhostin Ansari N ，van Tulder MW ，Babaei-Ghazani A ，Fallah E ... -  《Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews》